PDA

View Full Version : Congrats to the Spurs: NBA champions 2003


Fidel
06-15-2003, 10:08 PM
They were the better team in the finals and deserved to win.

Duncan was amazing throughout the series.

And while this team might be boring to watch at times, those guys are pure class thatīs for sure.

Mandyahl
06-15-2003, 10:10 PM
i will grudgingly congratulate the spurs. and duncan truly played like an mvp the whole series, especially tonight.

cookies_n_mavs
06-15-2003, 10:28 PM
They deserve it. The series wasn't built on very exciting games, but the Spurs didn't have to be exciting to be great. Tim was great and I couldn't be happier for David Robinson.

mavsfanforever
06-15-2003, 10:33 PM
Congrats Spurs. Personally I find any series in which mavs are not involved as not exciting.

mavsfanforever
06-15-2003, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by: Fidel
They were the better team in the finals .

I like your choice of words Fidel.

JDA
06-15-2003, 10:59 PM
I'm happy of course for D-Rob, but you can't forget Kevin Willis, Danny Ferry, and Steve Smith. All of those are vets who have been major contributors to the NBA for more than 10 years and this is their first title. They deserved it as much if not more than the other guys.

Another good point to make to all you Mavs fans, is that you lost to the eventual champs and the series was almost stretched to seven games. There is never a good time to exit the playoffs, but it something to be said to be knocked of by the champs. There is nothing but a bright future for all three teams in Texas. Let's keep the title in Texas!

Tony tha Mavs fan
06-15-2003, 11:14 PM
Although I wanted the Mavs there instead, the Spurs had a better team and Congrats. The only reason I even watched is to see David Robinson go out as a champion. It was great seeing one of the greatest centers of the league play and it's even better to see him going out as a champion.

OzMavs
06-15-2003, 11:21 PM
Congratulations Spurs. I am happy for all the guys (and gals!) that showed up here during the Finals. Hope to see you back soon.

Finally, you guys can take away the "*"!

veruca salt
06-15-2003, 11:31 PM
Better the Spurs than the Nets i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif

No, no, seriously....congratulations in order to the Spurs & Tim Duncan...what kind of stats
are they! Out of control.

mavsfanforever
06-16-2003, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by: JDA
I'm happy of course for D-Rob, but you can't forget Kevin Willis, Danny Ferry, and Steve Smith. All of those are vets who have been major contributors to the NBA for more than 10 years and this is their first title. They deserved it as much if not more than the other guys.


I am happy for D-Rob too but

I personally do no care for Kevin Willis, Danny ferry or Steve Smith. You have to be a spurs fan to really appreciate those guys. I mean there are thousands of players like them in the league who have retired without a championship.

mavsfanforever
06-16-2003, 04:07 AM
Originally posted by: Tony tha Mavs fan
the Spurs had a better team and Congrats.

This year lot of things fell into place for San Antonio.

They were the only healthy team in the playoffs this year.
1st Round : Stephen Marbury - spurs killer was hurt
2nd round : Kobe, Fox, George
3rd round : Dirk Nowitsky
Finals : K- Mart, Jason Kidd
They just did a good job of taking advantage of those injuries.

nowitzki_prophecy
06-16-2003, 05:05 AM
Damn its anoying,they werent that good of a team!!i mean,at least not a championship caliber team.
apparantly so was us,but its still very anoying.

Duncan is a class act,truely is,and probably the best player in the league right now,lets hope that not for longi/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

MavKikiNYC
06-16-2003, 09:57 AM
They just did a good job of taking advantage of those injuries.

MFF, if you're going to present that line of reasoning, you're going to end up devaluing what the Mavs accomplished as well.
Spurs had the best record in the league, and won the division over the Mavericks. Then they defeated their playoff opponents, whoever showed up, in whatever condition. Champions, plain and simple.


Damn its anoying,they werent that good of a team!!i mean,at least not a championship caliber team.
Spurs were an excellent team with a style of play unpopular to some fans; in any case, clearly championship calibre.


Mav fans should give them their due, and use Mavs' performance this past year and next as a barometer of team improvement. But denying the Spurs respect when they clearly have the best player, best team and best coach smacks of an unseemly, obnoxious homerism.

They won it. They deserved it. Hats off to the champions.

nowitzki_prophecy
06-16-2003, 10:30 AM
Spurs were an excellent team with a style of play unpopular to some fans; in any case, clearly championship calibre.

though i dont like their style of playing,i dont take it into concideration when i say they arent a championship calibre team.
they arent that good of a team,easily one of the best in the league,but it doesnt make it a championship calibre team,and by championship calibre team i mean the Lakers 2-3 years ago,even Utah in the good days when only Mike stood in the way of their Championship.
SA won because they were the best alternative.
they're good,but not that good.

aexchange
06-16-2003, 10:34 AM
spurs were the best team this year and ARE a championship calibre team.

they have excellent perimeter defenders and the best big man in the game today. anyone who says 20pts, 20 boards, 10 assists, and 8 blocks isn't championship calibre, but just the best alternative is wrong.

the only thing the spurs lacked was the ability to come up big in the clutch, and i'd say that is more a result of their youth, rather than their personnel.

nowitzki_prophecy
06-16-2003, 10:35 AM
Mav fans should give them their due, and use Mavs' performance this past year and next as a barometer of team improvement. But denying the Spurs respect when they clearly have the best player, best team and best coach smacks of an unseemly, obnoxious homerism.

i give them all the respect in the world,sadly they WERE the best team in the offseason,and they have in my opinion maybe the best coach in the NBA.
they have the undisputed MVP,and playoffs MVP.
they had D.Rob,one of mt all time favorite Centers,that even in his advance basketball age,still one of the better centers of the league,and still a winner.

but to be so blinded by their winning as to not say anything wrong about them is the opposite of homerisem.
your just dieing to give away credit,no matter if they actualy desereve it or not.

FYI,it had nothing to do with homerisem since i clearly stated they were better than us.
it has nothing to do with the Mavs.

MavKikiNYC
06-16-2003, 10:38 AM
Then were the Lakers of 2-3 years ago NOT championship calibre because they weren't as good as the Bulls' teams of 3-4 years before that?

And were those Bulls teams not championship calibre because they weren't as good as the Lakers, Celtics and Pistons teams of the 80s?

It's a comparison that can't ever be made conclusively. You have to evaluate them on what they actually accomplished, not on some comparison that can't ever be made.

nowitzki_prophecy
06-16-2003, 11:37 AM
you misunderstood,i didnt compare them spesifecly to those lakers or those Utah,i compared them to almost any team that won the championship,and that comparison can be made conclusively.
they were'nt that good of a team that you can say,wow,thats a legacy,or,they're unstopable,or that they even show that they were that good.
they didnt play that good,especially in the Finals,and won because the opposing teams were'nt too good either.
i can say without a doubt that SA would get their asses kicked by any team that won the title in the last 30 years,heck,even the runners up,those were championship calibre teams.
the spurs have yet to prove themselfs,the spurs have yet to beat a really tough team.
they got PHO,which was a fairly good team,got LA,that despite being seriously falling,are still a good team,but not a team that would be a title contender,at least not without any aquesition,and they beat us,hardly,with an 8 player rotation,serious help from the refs,and an injured Superstar.
not saying that we're a championship calibre team,but we're at least as good as SA.

maybe it shows the entire NBA is on a downhill,maybe Shaq was the last true superstar and with him went the stuff legacies are made,i dont know,but this team isnt a championship calibre team.

MavKikiNYC
06-16-2003, 11:54 AM
The only way that comparison could be proven would be to suit up any and/or all of those championship teams from the past 30 years and let them go head-to-head with this year's Spurs' team. The closest comparison that can be made conclusively would be the Spurs' performance against the Lakers this year. They beat them--pretty conclusively--on their way to a title.

The Lakers beat a Nets team last year that was weaker than this year's Nets' team. Was last year's Lakers team not championship calibre?

Incredible how so many people on this board and other want to boost up the Mavs or the Kings as championship contenders when NEITHER team has EVER made it so far as a championship series--at least not yet.

Just read an NBA Insider piece by Chad Ford, posted by OP, which speculates presicely the opposite of what you contend--that this year's Spurs team won a championship in a year before they've reached their peak performances; that their potential for adding personnel in the off-season puts them in a position to be a legacy, unstoppable, etc.

You deny any homer inclinations, NP, but putting this year's Mavs on par with this year's Spurs really can't be called anything else.

nowitzki_prophecy
06-16-2003, 03:04 PM
The only way that comparison could be proven would be to suit up any and/or all of those championship teams from the past 30 years and let them go head-to-head with this year's Spurs' team. The closest comparison that can be made conclusively would be the Spurs' performance against the Lakers this year. They beat them--pretty conclusively--on their way to a title

geez this is getting anoying.
your actualy telling me you cant tell the 80s lakers with Bird,Mchale,DJ,Parish,Ainge and such,or Kareem,Magic and Worthy,were better than this years SA?
not everything has to be proven without a doubt.
heck,there are entire fields of sciencs that are based entierly on theorys.
you cant PROVE any of those teams were better,but if you have the silghtest amount of NBA knowledge,you should know its hardly a competition.



The Lakers beat a Nets team last year that was weaker than this year's Nets' team. Was last year's Lakers team not championship calibre?

Hua?first off,last year Nets were about the same as they are this year,- + Richard jeffersons improvment,and a little K-Mart.
second,the Lakers Swept them without any problems,something SA had trouble doing,
and i guarentee you(ofcourse i cant prove it)the lakers of last year or 2 years ago would have abused this year Nets like they were little kids.
Third,the Lakers were challenged,by SAC and if you wish SA,something SA didnt had the plesoure of doing,knowing their strength.



Incredible how so many people on this board and other want to boost up the Mavs or the Kings as championship contenders when NEITHER team has EVER made it so far as a championship series--at least not yet.

if you read what i wrote,you'd see i made no such statement and actualy the opposite is true,i spesifecly said we WERE'NT title contenders.


Just read an NBA Insider piece by Chad Ford, posted by OP, which speculates presicely the opposite of what you contend--that this year's Spurs team won a championship in a year before they've reached their peak performances; that their potential for adding personnel in the off-season puts them in a position to be a legacy, unstoppable, etc.

maybe so,i didnt said they could'nt be a legacy,i said right now,the team that they have RIGHT NOW,isnt at a legacy level,or even Championship level,yet they made it after all do to the lack of competition.
potentialy,you have so many teams able to become Legacys with simple trades,or signs,it doesnt meant they would.
if we manage to sign ZO with the MLE and trade for JO we would EASILY go all the way,EASILY,but its all potentialy,and mean nothing about this year Mavs.


You deny any homer inclinations, NP, but putting this year's Mavs on par with this year's Spurs really can't be called anything else.

your a perfect example of the opposite of being a homer.
why exacly this year Mavs arent as good as SA?because we almost beat them with an 8 player rotation??and a hurt Superstar?!!!!!!
what the hell are you talking about?!!this two teams could'nt be more leveled!
we even have the same record on the reguler!!
yet you refuse to look at what just happened and your just so eager to give away complements,that your could'nt see the big picture.
not all championship winners are at the same level,and some didnt deserve getting their,but in this case,you dont really have a choice,like i said,its the best alternative.

aexchange
06-16-2003, 03:22 PM
just a quick thought to disprove your theory NP.

this san antonio team beat the exact same team that they lost to last year (the lakers). does this discredit the lakers championship run?

of course not.

nowitzki_prophecy
06-16-2003, 03:39 PM
you know aswell as anybody that this years lakers were nothing like the lakers they were last year.
if they were,you would see them kicking SAs ass,but surely not losing 4-2 without too much an effort like they did.

MavKikiNYC
06-16-2003, 04:40 PM
geez this is getting anoying.

You're telling me.



your actualy telling me you cant tell the 80s lakers with Bird,Mchale,DJ,Parish,Ainge and such,or Kareem,Magic and [Worthy,were better than this years SA?

What I'm saying is that it's a big, fat, futile exercise in counter-reality to compare teams who won their championships 5, 10 or 20 years apart, and to toss about nebulous definitions of 'championship calibre'.


Hua?first off,last year Nets were about the same as they are this year,- + Richard jeffersons improvment,and a little K-Mart.

Uhm, no they were significantly different. For one thing, this Nets team had the benefit of recent championship series experience, something that no Net had last year. For another, Richard Jefferson and Jason Collins replaced Keith Van Horn and Todd MacCullough respecitvely, ramping up the Nets defense significantly. Third, Kenyon Martin, the last two games notwithstanding, was significantly improved this year from last year. Fourth, this team had Dikembe Mutombo, and while Coach BS didn't have the gumption to use him effectively, Mutombo gave this year's Nets team a defensive dimension that was nowhere to be found last year. This year's Nets team was much better defensively than last year's, for much of the playoffs generating a large part of their points off fast breaks triggered by their defense, or by their transition offense. In the end, this reliance on defense for offense, may have worked to the Nets disadvantage, because they had VERY few options to rely on in a halfcourt game.



second,the Lakers Swept them without any problems,something SA had trouble doing,

Again, different years, different teams.


and i guarentee you(ofcourse i cant prove it)the lakers of last year or 2 years ago would have abused this year Nets like they were little kids. Third,the Lakers were challenged,by SAC and if you wish SA,something SA didnt had the plesoure of doing,knowing their strength.

And you think this affects the Spurs championship credibility how?




Incredible how so many people on this board and other want to boost up the Mavs or the Kings as championship contenders when NEITHER team has EVER made it so far as a championship series--at least not yet.


if you read what i wrote,you'd see i made no such statement and actualy the opposite is true,i spesifecly said we WERE'NT title contenders.

And yet, you thought they were as good as the Spurs? The two statements are logically incompatible.



Just read an NBA Insider piece by Chad Ford, posted by OP, which speculates presicely the opposite of what you contend--that this year's Spurs team won a championship in a year before they've reached their peak performances; that their potential for adding personnel in the off-season puts them in a position to be a legacy, unstoppable, etc.


maybe so,i didnt said they could'nt be a legacy,i said right now,the team that they have RIGHT NOW,isnt at a legacy level,or even Championship level,yet they made it after all do to the lack of competition.
potentialy,you have so many teams able to become Legacys with simple trades,or signs,it doesnt meant they would.
if we manage to sign ZO with the MLE and trade for JO we would EASILY go all the way,EASILY,but its all potentialy,and mean nothing about this year Mavs.

Uhm...the piece to which I was referring presents a thesis directly in opposition to yours--i.e., that the core of this year's Spurs IS capalbe of contending for and winning multiple championships in the next 5 years. People easily could have questioned the same thing about the Lakers after their first championship in 1980. That team went on to replace Nixon with Scott; Wilkes with Worthy; Chones with Rambis; later signed McAdoo; but the core of the team, Johnson, Abdul-Jabbar and Michael Cooper played through for multiple championships. Or the same question could've been raised about the Celtics team that beat Moses Malone's Rockets back in '81(?). But the Celtics replaced Tiny Archibald with Dennis Johnson; Chirs Ford with Danny Ainge; Rick Robey with Bill Walton; and pulled in Scott Wedman. The core stayed but the dyanasty was achieved with significantly different complementary players. So even if the Spurs end up signing signing another star, and surrounding Duncan, Parker, Rose and Jackson with different complementary players, they won't be doing anything different from other multiple championship teams.



your a perfect example of the opposite of being a homer.

Flattery will not work.



why exacly this year Mavs arent as good as SA?because we almost beat them with an 8 player rotation??and a hurt Superstar?!!!!!!
what the hell are you talking about?!!this two teams could'nt be more leveled!
we even have the same record on the reguler!!
yet you refuse to look at what just happened and your just so eager to give away complements,that your could'nt see the big picture.

The ways in which this year's Mavericks compared unfavorably to this year's Spurs could be the subject of another thread, but I don't know what an 8-player rotation has to do with it. That was Nellie's decision to go with a short bench--a tactic, not an attribute. I agree that it would've been interesting to see the Mavericks go against the Spurs with Dirk at full strength. But I would've expected the same result. Whether the Spurs let up with Nowtizki out and gave away a game they should've won could be discussed; or the Mavericks playing short-handed on guts for pride could be discussed; but in the end it doesn't matter, and I would have seen the Spurs as favored to win against the Mavericks, Dirk or no Dirk.


not all championship winners are at the same level,and some didnt deserve getting their..

I would be very grateful if you could explain how a team that won the championship didn't deserve to. Perhaps you're referring to last year's Lakers team? Were they not of championship calibre, in your estimation? Would that mean that you think the Kings should've been champions? If so, that was what I was referring to about people trying to regard the Kings as champions, when they've never competed for a championship. If you meant something different, I trust you'll explain.

Drbio
06-16-2003, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by: nowitzki_prophecy
you know aswell as anybody that this years lakers were nothing like the lakers they were last year.
if they were,you would see them kicking SAs ass,but surely not losing 4-2 without too much an effort like they did.


Man NP, I gotta disagree with you here. The Lakers core was the same and I watched that series and the Lakers did everything they possibly could to play hard. They were clearly outworked by the Spurs.

superheadcat
06-16-2003, 04:50 PM
this year's spur played better than all its opponents (maybe not much better, but better enough to win), consistently and repeatedly, and they did that in playoff.

that sounds pretty much "championship calibre" to me, however sorry that makes today's nba.

"other teams are bad" cannot be an excuse, what should spur do? apologize and refuse to take advantage?

i don't like current nba's playing style, and believe mavs have a substantial chance to change that. but before that happens, i have to say mavs are not up to champion level there yet.

nowitzki_prophecy
06-16-2003, 05:37 PM
Man NP, I gotta disagree with you here. The Lakers core was the same and I watched that series and the Lakers did everything they possibly could to play hard. They were clearly outworked by the Spurs.

first i'll ansewr Doc.
i saw that series aswell,and they did play hard,i didnt said they lost because of the lack of trying.
they lost cause shaq looked miserable,and i think his entire career would be downhill from now on,missed lay-ups got blocked,surely this isnt Shaq-attack.
their offense was based on Kobe,which was very very inconsistent,and with FG not nearly as good as Shaqs.
Kobe is NOT unstopable,Shaq-Attack is.
the lakers Is shaquile oneal,without a strong Shaq they pretty much have a mediocre team.
thats what happened in the SA series,and thats why the Lakers even had difficulties against the T-Puppies.




this year's spur played better than all its opponents (maybe not much better, but better enough to win), consistently and repeatedly, and they did that in playoff.

that sounds pretty much "championship calibre" to me, however sorry that makes today's nba.

exactly what i said except the "championship calibre" statement.
i say that to be a championship calibre team have to be more than "a little better than opponents".
i guess i hold a different view of the concept,cause i see all of you see "championship calibre team" is equal to a "title contender".
there will always be title contenders,cause somebody has to win,but "championship calibre" is reserved for the teams that would be in the pages of history.
not just because they were "better than opponents,no matter how weak",but because they faced barriers and obstacles,and played against great teams,and still managed to win the title.
just the best alternate,and no matter how you look at it its exactly what the Spurs are,could never be a "championship calibre" team,that title is reserved for the grates,not teams that have that easily lose the title to another "good alternate".

now to mavkiki who waited patientlyi/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif



What I'm saying is that it's a big, fat, futile exercise in counter-reality to compare teams who won their championships 5, 10 or 20 years apart, and to toss about nebulous definitions of 'championship calibre'.

its there to show you whats championship calibre,at least to me.
winning a championship doesnt make you a championship calibre team.
to me,saying a team is championship calibre team is like comparing it to other great teams in history and saying they could have had good series against each other,and that they arent that different leveled.



Uhm, no they were significantly different. For one thing, this Nets team had the benefit of recent championship series experience, something that no Net had last year. For another, Richard Jefferson and Jason Collins replaced Keith Van Horn and Todd MacCullough respecitvely, ramping up the Nets defense significantly. Third, Kenyon Martin, the last two games notwithstanding, was significantly improved this year from last year. Fourth, this team had Dikembe Mutombo, and while Coach BS didn't have the gumption to use him effectively, Mutombo gave this year's Nets team a defensive dimension that was nowhere to be found last year. This year's Nets team was much better defensively than last year's, for much of the playoffs generating a large part of their points off fast breaks triggered by their defense, or by their transition offense. In the end, this reliance on defense for offense, may have worked to the Nets disadvantage, because they had VERY few options to rely on in a halfcourt game.

comm'on,thats BS,except the experience they gained by playing last years Finals,and like i said,some improvement by K-Mart,everything else is so irelevent,and so minot.
actualy using Mutombo to say he helped is pretty funny,maybe he did had anything left in him but the point is that Scott hardly gave him any game time so it doesnt matter,HE DIDNT HELPED.
maybe you noticed it already but i have no respect for the Nets,and i honestly think that they could hardly get in the playoffs in the West.
and a "championship calibre" team should have no trouble toying with the Nets,improved or not.


And you think this affects the Spurs championship credibility how?

by showing that the lakers of than,are better than the spurs today,and that the only reason they passed them was because they weakend,not because the spurs have improved that drasticly(i do believe they improved though),and back than they werent a championship calibre team,so now they are??because other teams are weakend?


And yet, you thought they were as good as the Spurs? The two statements are logically incompatible.

how come?were as good as the Spurs,and were both title contenders du to cercomstances,and hardly "championship calibre" teams.
would you inlighten me please to where the statements are logically incompatible??


Uhm...the piece to which I was referring presents a thesis directly in opposition to yours--i.e., that the core of this year's Spurs IS capalbe of contending for and winning multiple championships in the next 5 years. People easily could have questioned the same thing about the Lakers after their first championship in 1980. That team went on to replace Nixon with Scott; Wilkes with Worthy; Chones with Rambis; later signed McAdoo; but the core of the team, Johnson, Abdul-Jabbar and Michael Cooper played through for multiple championships. Or the same question could've been raised about the Celtics team that beat Moses Malone's Rockets back in '81(?). But the Celtics replaced Tiny Archibald with Dennis Johnson; Chirs Ford with Danny Ainge; Rick Robey with Bill Walton; and pulled in Scott Wedman. The core stayed but the dyanasty was achieved with significantly different complementary players. So even if the Spurs end up signing signing another star, and surrounding Duncan, Parker, Rose and Jackson with different complementary players, they won't be doing anything different from other multiple championship teams.

the core???what core?!!!!SAs core is TIM DUNCAN,nothing more,and they could change the entire team beside Tim and it would still be almost the exact team,and if they add a player with the Cap space,and use it to the Max,you got yourself a new core,cause i doubt Jason Kidd or JO would be less significant to the team than Stephen freaking Jackson!how the hell did you got to think Jackson is a core player?!!10 points a game doesnt make you a core player,hardly makes you a starting five.



your a perfect example of the opposite of being a homer.


Flattery will not work.

extreme is bad on both ends.


The ways in which this year's Mavericks compared unfavorably to this year's Spurs could be the subject of another thread, but I don't know what an 8-player rotation has to do with it. That was Nellie's decision to go with a short bench--a tactic, not an attribute. I agree that it would've been interesting to see the Mavericks go against the Spurs with Dirk at full strength. But I would've expected the same result. Whether the Spurs let up with Nowtizki out and gave away a game they should've won could be discussed; or the Mavericks playing short-handed on guts for pride could be discussed; but in the end it doesn't matter, and I would have seen the Spurs as favored to win against the Mavericks, Dirk or no Dirk.

on that we could only disagree.


I would be very grateful if you could explain how a team that won the championship didn't deserve to. Perhaps you're referring to last year's Lakers team? Were they not of championship calibre, in your estimation? Would that mean that you think the Kings should've been champions? If so, that was what I was referring to about people trying to regard the Kings as champions, when they've never competed for a championship. If you meant something different, I trust you'll explain.

well,last years lakers are a good example,but only an example.
i for one think they didnt deserved to win,but it doesnt really matter,in any sport and anything for that matter,things happen that should'nt happen.(you really need me to explain how the world works?)
same with basketbal,a team is getting too much respect from the refs,other teams star/stars are injured and so on.
the other team won the championship fair and square,but if it was the normal condition of things,the other team has won.
its not always du to hard work and integrity.
thats what i mean by didnt deserved to win,didnt played the best basketball,but still...

madape
06-16-2003, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by: Fidel
They were the better team in the finals and deserved to win.

Duncan was amazing throughout the series.

And while this team might be boring to watch at times, those guys are pure class thatīs for sure.


Way to call the winner Fidel. You've been warning us about the Spurs all year long.

mavsfanforever
06-16-2003, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

They just did a good job of taking advantage of those injuries.

MFF, if you're going to present that line of reasoning, you're going to end up devaluing what the Mavs accomplished as well.
Spurs had the best record in the league, and won the division over the Mavericks. Then they defeated their playoff opponents, whoever showed up, in whatever condition. Champions, plain and simple.


Damn its anoying,they werent that good of a team!!i mean,at least not a championship caliber team.
Spurs were an excellent team with a style of play unpopular to some fans; in any case, clearly championship calibre.


Mav fans should give them their due, and use Mavs' performance this past year and next as a barometer of team improvement. But denying the Spurs respect when they clearly have the best player, best team and best coach smacks of an unseemly, obnoxious homerism.

They won it. They deserved it. Hats off to the champions.

I am more than happy to see spurs win it and I am giving them all the props. All I meant to say is they do not look like a team I am used to seeing as a champion. I mean teams with Killer Instinct(Bulls, lakers, celtics).

They are 2002-03 Champion but if they repeat it again in 03-04 they will get all the respect.

Fidel
06-16-2003, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by: madape

Originally posted by: Fidel
They were the better team in the finals and deserved to win.

Duncan was amazing throughout the series.

And while this team might be boring to watch at times, those guys are pure class thatīs for sure.


Way to call the winner Fidel. You've been warning us about the Spurs all year long.

Hey thanks Madape.
I really really hope they somehow manage to blow their offseason opportunities (very unlikely though). Unlike other people I think the worst they could do is to sign Kidd and and ship Parker. Kidd would be a very nice addition no doubt, but he just isnīt a reliable scorer. Plus if they do sign Kidd theyīd have trouble signing an adequate replacement for D-Rob.

If they simply keep Parker, Ginobili, Bowen, Rose and Duncan around and do sign someone like JO or Brand
they will be allmost unstoppable. The only team that might have a chance to challange them in this case are the Lakers, if Shaq really works out in the offseason. The Mavs would have to rebuild around Dirk IMO if the second scenario goes down. I really donīt see how we could counter a Duncan/OīNeal frontline with the way our team is currently structured.

JDA
06-16-2003, 11:35 PM
The Spurs can only beat the teams placed in front of them. One of those teams happen to be the defending champs and current dynasty that had the exact same cast as the year before. The Spurs are champs and that can't be argued!

one long blue sock
06-17-2003, 12:42 AM
Personally i would have like to see the Mavs, or Sac-town win it.. but Tim Duncan any rewards that come his way.

TVI
06-17-2003, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by: nowitzki_prophecy
Damn its anoying,they werent that good of a team!!i mean,at least not a championship caliber team.
apparantly so was us,but its still very anoying.

I guess I'm not really sure what a "championship caliber" team is, then. Maybe they weren't rolling through the opposition like they did in 1999, but they won it all in a rebuilding year. That should speak volumes about the quality of people in the organization. They far exceeded my expectations, although I did think that they could challenge the best if they could only stay healthy in the playoffs.

The Spurs won 60 games, and became the first team to win the new 16 game playoff format. They went through the only other team to win 60 games in the NBA, and they also went through the team which won the last three championships. No one else could do that this year. If the Spurs aren't championship caliber, then that doesn't speak well for the rest of the NBA.

For those who would discredit that accomplishment, by claiming that injuries made a difference in the level of competition, remember their record against the top teams in the West this year.

I think this year's Nets were tougher than last year's Nets. That said, NJ won two games by a total of 3 points. The Nets didn't really have a great shot at winning any of the four games they lost.

I think people looking for style and beauty points are looking at the wrong thing. The Spurs won like the Pistons did: with tough, stingy defense, and enough offense to outscore what their defense gave up. Duncan set a finals record for blocked shots (32), and he did it in 6 games. Robinson did not over extend himself in the regular season this year, and had some pretty good juice in the playoffs. Ginobili showed the rest of the league why he was considered a potential ROY, after finally overcoming his badly sprained ankle. Parker, Bowen, Rose, et. al. all made contributions this year.

They faced the best competition the NBA had to offer. They were just better. All champions share the same attribute.

kg_veteran
06-17-2003, 10:12 PM
It really beats me down to see someone trying to take away from the champs and what they accomplished. If you want to say they're not as good as other championship teams, fine. But they're still the champs. And they put the Mavericks out. That's the bottom line, no matter how you spin it.

Congrats to the Spurs. They're the champs, and they deserve it because they beat everyone they played. Last time I check, that's how the system worked.

nowitzki_prophecy
06-18-2003, 10:10 AM
It really beats me down to see someone trying to take away from the champs and what they accomplished. If you want to say they're not as good as other championship teams, fine. But they're still the champs. And they put the Mavericks out. That's the bottom line, no matter how you spin it.

why do you assume i disagree with what you said?almost my entire point was that they arent as good as other championship teams,and you just said it yourself.